Law Offices Of Gong & Associates

General

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

or Log in

Cases2

Challenger50%

Patent Owner50%

NPE50%

gong-io

gong.io

Practice Areas

DesignSemicond., Optic

Top Attorneys

Patrick J. CoyneNeal S. CohenPeter Kinsella

Elite Ratings

DCTPTABCAFC

Ratings

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

or Log in

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

PTAB

CAFC

Analytics

Lawyers

Cases

Ratings Trends

Practice Areas

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
11/15/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-05218 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: This is a "Schedule A" case, which is a type of lawsuit typically filed against a group of sellers whose assumed names are listed on an attachment to the complaint, usually called "Schedule A." Oakley, Inc. v. P'ships & Unincorporated, 2021 WL 308882, at 1 (N.D. Ill. January 30, 2021). Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to certain Defendants. R. 225, Mot. Default; R. 226, Memo. Default. The Court denies the motion [225] without prejudice for the following reasons. First, Plaintiff asserts it is entitled to a reasonable royalty of $10,000 plus 10% of defaulting Defendants sales of unauthorized products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. In support of the $10,000 licensing fee, Plaintiff cites to the Declaration of Sason Gabay. Decl. Gabay 8. However, Plaintiff does not explain its calculation of the 10% of defaulting Defendants' sales of unauthorized products. Instead, Plaintiff includes a table with a column titled "10% Royalty of Sales by Defendant" without explanation, citation, or supporting documentation. Memo. at 11-12. Further, by the title of the column, it appears that Plaintiff is including all sales by the Defaulting Defendant, and it is not limited to only sales of the authorized products. Second, Plaintiff requests transaction costs, and cites one out-of-district case supporting this request, while maintaining that "courts have routinely held that a hypothetical license negotiation would have required transaction costs, which would be paid by the Defaulting Defendants." Id. at 9. However, Plaintiff does not support this request with any in-district case law or additional supporting authority, or describe how it arrived at the $5,000 per Defaulting Defendant transaction cost amount. Instead, Plaintiff cites to the amount of attorney's fees incurred in this case. Id. (citing Decl. Lee 9). It does not follow that a hypothetical license negotiation estimate would be the amount of the attorney's fees incurred in this case, which involves prosecuting alleged patent infringement. Finally, Plaintiff requests treble damages for each Defaulting Defendant. Memo. at 9. True, enhanced damages up to three times the amount are allowed under Section 284, but the Court is not convinced such enhanced damages are necessarily appropriate here. Based on the Court's review of the two cases cited in Plaintiff's memorandum following its request for treble damages, both cases were out-of-district, and none concerned Schedule A patent infringement cases. In any renewed default motion, Plaintiff must support its request for each category of damages with supporting authority, and to explain its methodology and calculation of the royalty of sales per each Defaulting Defendant, with supporting documentation. If Plaintiff continues to request treble the amount of Defaulting Defendants' profits for the unauthorized sales, any renewed motion must further support the basis for the request for enhanced damages and cite other patent "Schedule A" cases from this District, in which the court has awarded enhanced damages. Mailed notice. (jcm) (Entered: 11/15/2024) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: This is a "Schedule A" case, which is a type of lawsuit typically filed against a group of sellers whose assumed names are listed on an attachment to the complaint, usually called "Schedule A." Oakley, Inc. v. P'ships & Unincorporated, 2021 WL 308882, at 1 (N.D. Ill. January 30, 2021). Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for default judgment as to certain Defendants. R. 225, Mot. Default; R. 226, Memo. Default. The Court denies the motion [225] without prejudice for the following reasons. First, Plaintiff asserts it is entitled to a reasonable royalty of $10,000 plus 10% of defaulting Defendants sales of unauthorized products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. In support of the $10,000 licensing fee, Plaintiff cites to the Declaration of Sason Gabay. Decl. Gabay 8. However, Plaintiff does not explain its calculation of the 10% of defaulting Defendants' sales of unauthorized products. Instead, Plaintiff includes a table with a column titled "10% Royalty of Sales by Defendant" without explanation, citation, or supporting documentation. Memo. at 11-12. Further, by the title of the column, it appears that Plaintiff is including all sales by the Defaulting Defendant, and it is not limited to only sales of the authorized products. Second, Plaintiff requests transaction costs, and cites one out-of-district case supporting this request, while maintaining that "courts have routinely held that a hypothetical license negotiation would have required transaction costs, which would be paid by the Defaulting Defendants." Id. at 9. However, Plaintiff does not support this request with any in-district case law or additional supporting authority, or describe how it arrived at the $5,000 per Defaulting Defendant transaction cost amount. Instead, Plaintiff cites to the amount of attorney's fees incurred in this case. Id. (citing Decl. Lee 9). It does not follow that a hypothetical license negotiation estimate would be the amount of the attorney's fees incurred in this case, which involves prosecuting alleged patent infringement. Finally, Plaintiff requests treble damages for each Defaulting Defendant. Memo. at 9. True, enhanced damages up to three times the amount are allowed under Section 284, but the Court is not convinced such enhanced damages are necessarily appropriate here. Based on the Court's review of the two cases cited in Plaintiff's memorandum following its request for treble damages, both cases were out-of-district, and none concerned Schedule A patent infringement cases. In any renewed default motion, Plaintiff must support its request for each category of damages with supporting authority, and to explain its methodology and calculation of the royalty of sales per each Defaulting Defendant, with supporting documentation. If Plaintiff continues to request treble the amount of Defaulting Defendants' profits for the unauthorized sales, any renewed motion must further support the basis for the request for enhanced damages and cite other patent "Schedule A" cases from this District, in which the court has awarded enhanced damages. Mailed notice. (jcm) (Entered: 11/15/2024)
11/15/24	Pathway IP LLC v. Individuals Corps Ltd 1:24-CV-05218 ( N.D. IL )	STATUS Report by Pathway IP LLC Presented before District Judge (Haque, Sameeul) (Entered: 11/15/2024)
10/22/24	Dropcases Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-02589 ( S.D. NY )	LETTER addressed to Judge Jennifer L. Rochon from Emily M. Borich dated October 22, 2024 re: Release of Bond. Document filed by Dropcases, LTD...(Borich, Emily) (Entered: 10/22/2024)
10/22/24	Dropcases Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-02589 ( S.D. NY )	NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(1)(A)(i) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Dropcases Ltd. ("Plaintiff"), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby voluntarily dismisses this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the following Defendants: EVDANCE and Seguma terminated.Prior to the filing of this notice, Defendants have yet to file an answer or motion forsummary judgment. By the court's order dated October 15, 2024 [Dkt. 102], Plaintiff was required to provide a further status update as to service of the remaining Defendants, dismissed herein, by October 21, 2024 and requested an extension to do so [Dkt. 103], which is now moot. There are no other Defendants remaining in this action. Plaintiff's claims against the defendants listed in this application are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to CLOSE the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on 10/22/2024) (jca) (Entered: 10/22/2024) NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(1)(A)(i) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Dropcases Ltd. ("Plaintiff"), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby voluntarily dismisses this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the following Defendants: EVDANCE and Seguma terminated.Prior to the filing of this notice, Defendants have yet to file an answer or motion forsummary judgment. By the court's order dated October 15, 2024 [Dkt. 102], Plaintiff was required to provide a further status update as to service of the remaining Defendants, dismissed herein, by October 21, 2024 and requested an extension to do so [Dkt. 103], which is now moot. There are no other Defendants remaining in this action. Plaintiff's claims against the defendants listed in this application are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to CLOSE the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on 10/22/2024) (jca) (Entered: 10/22/2024)
10/22/24	Dropcases Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:24-CV-02589 ( S.D. NY )	NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff(s) and or their counsel(s), hereby give notice that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice against the defendant(s) All Remaining Defendants. Document filed by Dropcases, LTD.. Proposed document to be reviewed and processed by Clerk's Office staff (No action required by chambers)...(Borich, Emily) (Entered: 10/22/2024) NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff(s) and or their counsel(s), hereby give notice that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice against the defendant(s) All Remaining Defendants. Document filed by Dropcases, LTD.. Proposed document to be reviewed and processed by Clerk's Office staff (No action required by chambers)...(Borich, Emily) (Entered: 10/22/2024)